You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by David Van Couvering <Da...@Sun.COM> on 2005/08/16 00:31:01 UTC
"bug-check"
Hi, all. I am noticing that messages for exceptions thrown in
org.apache.derby.jdbc.ClientBaseDataSource often have the suffice "bug
check: ", for example "bug check: corresponding property field does not
exist".
Does anyone have any history on this and why this is there? Is this
correct, or should I be fixing something as I extract these messages
into a properties file?
Thanks,
David
Re: "bug-check"
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
If we do revisit the common code problem, I'd like to throw something
else onto the pile of common code: the DRDA constants. Methinks the
network client and server should share these constants rather than clone
them.
Cheers,
-Rick
David Van Couvering wrote:
> Thaks, Satheesh. Moving the engine assert mechanism over would
> involve either more cutting and pasting or revisiting the "common jar
> file problem". Personally, if we do any assert support in the client,
> I would like to just use JDK 1.4 assertions (and have it be a no-op
> for JDK 1.3 builds).
>
> At any rate, to keep things contained, I am going to just continue
> using these error messages as written now, and we can address the
> issue around using asserts in the client as a separate JIRA item.
>
> David
>
> Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
>
>> I think some of them were inserted during development to support some
>> kind of assertions. We could change them now as appropriate. Should we
>> consider using engine's ASSERT() mechanism in the client too?
>>
>> Satheesh
>>
>> David Van Couvering wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I meant "suffix" not "suffice"
>>>
>>> David Van Couvering wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi, all. I am noticing that messages for exceptions thrown in
>>>> org.apache.derby.jdbc.ClientBaseDataSource often have the suffice
>>>> "bug check: ", for example "bug check: corresponding property field
>>>> does not exist".
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any history on this and why this is there? Is this
>>>> correct, or should I be fixing something as I extract these messages
>>>> into a properties file?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: "bug-check"
Posted by David Van Couvering <Da...@Sun.COM>.
Thaks, Satheesh. Moving the engine assert mechanism over would involve
either more cutting and pasting or revisiting the "common jar file
problem". Personally, if we do any assert support in the client, I
would like to just use JDK 1.4 assertions (and have it be a no-op for
JDK 1.3 builds).
At any rate, to keep things contained, I am going to just continue using
these error messages as written now, and we can address the issue around
using asserts in the client as a separate JIRA item.
David
Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
>I think some of them were inserted during development to support some
>kind of assertions. We could change them now as appropriate. Should we
>consider using engine's ASSERT() mechanism in the client too?
>
>Satheesh
>
>David Van Couvering wrote:
>
>
>
>>I meant "suffix" not "suffice"
>>
>>David Van Couvering wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi, all. I am noticing that messages for exceptions thrown in
>>>org.apache.derby.jdbc.ClientBaseDataSource often have the suffice
>>>"bug check: ", for example "bug check: corresponding property field
>>>does not exist".
>>>
>>>Does anyone have any history on this and why this is there? Is this
>>>correct, or should I be fixing something as I extract these messages
>>>into a properties file?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: "bug-check"
Posted by Satheesh Bandaram <sa...@Sourcery.Org>.
I think some of them were inserted during development to support some
kind of assertions. We could change them now as appropriate. Should we
consider using engine's ASSERT() mechanism in the client too?
Satheesh
David Van Couvering wrote:
> I meant "suffix" not "suffice"
>
> David Van Couvering wrote:
>
>> Hi, all. I am noticing that messages for exceptions thrown in
>> org.apache.derby.jdbc.ClientBaseDataSource often have the suffice
>> "bug check: ", for example "bug check: corresponding property field
>> does not exist".
>>
>> Does anyone have any history on this and why this is there? Is this
>> correct, or should I be fixing something as I extract these messages
>> into a properties file?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David
>
>
Re: "bug-check"
Posted by David Van Couvering <Da...@Sun.COM>.
I meant "suffix" not "suffice"
David Van Couvering wrote:
> Hi, all. I am noticing that messages for exceptions thrown in
> org.apache.derby.jdbc.ClientBaseDataSource often have the suffice "bug
> check: ", for example "bug check: corresponding property field does
> not exist".
>
> Does anyone have any history on this and why this is there? Is this
> correct, or should I be fixing something as I extract these messages
> into a properties file?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David